dba_tableUsageImpact

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context: the tool can materialize results as a volatile table when persist=true, returning the table name. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the non-destructive, safe nature of the operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of a brief overview and clear argument definitions. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. While compact, it conveys all necessary information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the main goal and the function of each parameter, including the special behavior of the persist option. However, it could be improved by describing the default return format when persist is false.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described and given defaults. The description adds minimal extra meaning, as the argument descriptions in the schema already convey the same information (e.g., 'Leave empty for all databases'). Thus, the description does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool measures usage of tables/views by users to determine resource usage. It specifies the verb 'measure' and the resource 'tables and views', providing a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'base_tableUsage', which may have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for analyzing resource usage with optional database and user filters, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'base_tableUsage'. There are no 'when not to use' instructions or comparisons to siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.